Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It implies a read operation ('Returns') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention authorization, rate limits, or edge cases (e.g., empty wallet). The behavior is partially disclosed but lacks sufficient detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, both essential. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output details. The second sentence adds source context. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (positions with specific fields). It covers the key elements needed for a query tool with one parameter. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination or error handling, but these are not critical for this simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter described. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (staked amount, USD value, etc.), which helps the agent understand the output even without an output schema. The description of the parameter itself matches the schema, but the additional output context elevates it above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'active staking positions for a wallet', listing specific outputs (staked amount, USD value, earned rewards, APR). It distinguishes from siblings like 'fuse_get_staking_options' (returns options) and 'fuse_smart_stake_token' (performs staking).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context about when it is appropriate or when to avoid it. The mention of 'Powered by the Fusebox SDK StakingModule' is generic and does not differentiate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.